I believe we were talking about Numbers 35:30. Please don't try to go off topic. You said Numbers 35 was clear. You refused to give a definition of murder. I did. Now you want to talk about something else. Shouldn't we agree on the definition before talking about your various other topics? Please stick with the topic.

I believe you are under the impression that <ratsach> is used as a noun in both instances of the verse. Do you say it is always used as a noun? If not, do you have evidence that it should not be used as a verb in this verse? Are you saying the manuscript, which has <ratsach>, was wrong, also meaning your supposed interpretation in using the word was wrong, too? (You sure made importance of <ratsach> then) Do translators trump the original?

Does 2 or more witnesses agree with you that it should only be used as a noun in this verse?

While reading the paragraph right before that, I was thinking of Jesus writing in the sand with the adulteress. Isn't that interesting. Especially given what is trying to be said.

At the following interlinear Bible translation I get this:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/numbers/35-30.htm



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As can be seen by the interlinear transliteration/translation I posted above, an interlinear rendering is actually just another form of "translation." And it's not perfect. Nor is it necessarily closer to the original. It's just less grammatically correct or sensible in the target language, being a rough translation.

In the above, BOTH uses of "ratsach" (spelled differently than this in the above transliteration), were verbs. Even the interlinear rendering used a noun form for one in English. That particular permutation of "ratsach" supposedly occurs only twice in all of the Bible, and the other time it occurs it is translated as a verb.

So, this text is not talking about "murderers" (nouns), right? It's talking about the act of murdering (verb).

Furthermore, obviously the witnesses are not "murdered" (or there wouldn't be anyone left to testify of the crime), and yet that is what the interlinear translation might lead a careless reader to assume.

I tend to think whomever did the translation in the above simply followed the majority of other translations--correctly or not.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Shall I say you have refused to read the entirety of this thread? I have already provided on this forum a definition for murder. You are mistaken if you believe I have refused to give it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The scripture4all uses the Westminster Leningrad Codex(WLC) also but I see that scripture4all uses more of a transliteration of the Hebrew rendering whereas the Bible Hub seems to be using more of an English translation of the Hebrew. But both uses the WLC. I would imagine that whoever created the WLC has all the Bible English(or other languages) translation available in their database and they can provide their WLC Hebrew interlinear code with any or as many English translation that you want.

However scripture4all WLC is design for studying purpose tools in universities (as I have seen a snap shot of it in some famous multi-denominational place that I don't remember the name). They(scripture4all version) have rendered every Hebrew words with only one English word for all the Bible. I have seen some few exceptions where the Hebrew is translated in two words for some practical grammatical reason that I don't recall. Plus they supply the suffix and prefix transliteration with "-" and "." notation separated from the English word so you can see the correlation with the Hebrew text. So the scripture4all WLC version software does not seek to supply a translation or a smooth English reading as I'm assuming the Bible Hub version does with that one text while comparing it with the scripture4all version.

Correct. It's only a tool to decipher the Hebrew.


Well if you have a good English-transliteration version of the Hebrew-transliteration Westminster Leningrad Codex; then you are closer to the original verses compare to a polished translation as seemingly Bible Hub is providing. I know I'm not using the word "transliteration" correctly but I hope you know what I mean.


Yes. An interlinear is not suppose to be a translation.


There's one noun form of ratsach and it is retsach h7524. Again ratsach h7523 (the verb form) doesn't mean "murder" its proper meaning is "to dash into pieces"; so it's noun form retsach means "a crushing" that derives its proper meaning from its root verb. These English rendering of the verb ratsach ("murder", "kill", "put to death" or "slay") all fall short of the real proper meaning of the Hebrew word ratsach. Thus the noun form retsach is not once translated in the KJV as murderer but instead "sword" or "slaughter".


I do not know Hebrew enough to know how they can make a noun out of the verb when the source text have certain suffix or prefix to it. But the scholars does have translated that word as a noun and its not the only root verb they have done that with. I have seen some root verb translated as an adjective also.

I do know that Hebrew language and thoughts is all focus on the verb; whereas the Greek language their rood base words are based on nouns. I'm far from being a linguist and I can't even tell you if its the same case(root based on nouns) for English and French. I have heard linguistics experts and Hebrew speaking scholars comment on how the Hebrew is a non stagnate language -- always in some motion -- that shows this uniqueness comparing to other languages. But I haven't verified that claim to know if this is true. You know way more languages than me and maybe you can tell me if with the language that you know if they are all noun bound rooted. For sure you could learn Hebrew with way more ease and much faster than me. Certainly there's lots of tools at our disposal.


I think you are assuming too much when you do not understand the Hebrew language much yet. I cannot agree on your assumption or even on my own assumptions that I often make while studying. Assumptions are ok and have its place when learning as long as we don't treat our assumption as a truth or a conclusion or seek others to agree with these. We can raise these assumption as something to keep in mind during our investigation as long as we are able to keep them aside where they belong as something to test and wait for more information to be proven or to be rejected. These assumptions are to be treated the same as hearts idols(pre-conceived ideas) --- keep them aside until you hear from the Lord while you ponder and study further on the matter.

I would recommend that you put aside Num 35:30 as we continue to look at other texts that uses ratsach and come more familiar of its usage in context of other scriptures and try to derive its meaning from how the Lord has used it to express His mind.

I agree.

I think our(most Christians today) level of understanding the law is even lesser than those leaders that were trying to stone that adulteress [really they were seeking to put Jesus in a spot to sin]. For sure, despite they studied it and it was part of their social structure, these Jewish leaders knew less of the law than Jesus and their interpretation miss the target by a mile.

Jesus knows the whole law because it is an expression of His character and His way of dealing with us.

So we need to be careful with our superficial level of understanding, that we don't find ourselve like those Jews applying or interpretating superficially the law because we just haven't learn the mind of Christ yet versus those laws.

Like in the case of the 6th commandment that most Christian think they know what it is all about. Even, I myself, I realized I don't even know (as I have never studied this word before or pondered on this law) what it is about even after focusing my studies on the law for these past 7+ years.

Let's look closer at that definition. Multiple online sources confirm that "ratsach" means murder, including Strong's definitions.

"Ratsach" means "Murder"
ratsach: to murder, slay Original Word: רָצַח Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: ratsach Phonetic Spelling: (raw-tsakh') Short Definition: manslayer http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7523.htm
1) to murder, slay, kill 1a) (Qal) to murder, slay 1a1) premeditated 1a2) accidental 1a3) as avenger 1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle) 1b) (Niphal) to be slain 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to murder, assassinate 1c2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) 1d) (Pual) to be killed http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/7523.html
From Strong's: #7523. רָצַח ratsach (953d); a prim. root; to murder, slay:— NASB - killed(1), kills the manslayer(1), manslayer(18), murder(7), murdered(2), murderer(12), murderer shall be put(1), murderers(1), murders(1), put to death(1), slew(1). http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/7523.html
to murder, slay, kill (Qal) to murder, slay premeditated accidental as avenger slayer (intentional) (participle) (Niphal) to be slain (Piel) to murder, assassinate murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) (Pual) to be killed https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h7523
Strong's Number: 7523 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin xcr a primitive root Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Ratsach TWOT - 2208 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech raw-tsakh' Verb Definition to murder, slay, kill (Qal) to murder, slay premeditated accidental as avenger slayer (intentional) (participle) (Niphal) to be slain (Piel) to murder, assassinate murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) (Pual) to be killed NAS Word Usage - Total: 46 killed 1, kills the manslayer 1, manslayer 18, murder 7, murdered 2, murderer 12, murderer shall be put 1, murderers 1, murders 1, put to death 1, slew 1 http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/ratsach.html

As for your claims regarding the "noun form" of ratsach, it is actually a different word of the same root, "retsach," and it occurs only twice in the entire Bible, so we can easily look at every occurrence in this case.

The first is in Psalm 42:10, a clearly poetic book, which uses the term in the phrase: "As with a sword H7524 in my bones. . . ." I suppose that one could claim there was a murderer in the psalmist's bones, but a "murderous pain" might be closer to the actual dysphemism here.

The second one is in Ezekiel 21:22, which says "At his right hand was the divination for Jerusalem, to appoint captains, to open the mouth in the slaughter, H7524 to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort."

It makes no clear reference to "murder" either. It is unclear, from this text alone, exactly what sort of "slaughter" might be spoken of. Context might help, but even then, we have a sole witness for the entire Bible--not enough to base a definition on, much less a doctrine.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That link source contradict what numerous source including the official Strong Concordance & dictionary itself that I have in my library has published. I think your link source is in error for I have ratsach defined as "to dash in pieces" from Strong dictionary in :

#1 my scripture4all software,
#2 the online blueletterBible site,
#3 in my bible that has Strongs dictionary in the back,
#4 in my hard copy(book) of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance a 1992 reprint that has Strong's dictionary ,

#5 the Gesenius Hebrew and Chalsean Lexicon -- This is not Strong's dictionary but from Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew's Lexicon which is a renown a preferred piece of work over others....they have the same definition as Strong.

ALL of these sources have define the word ratsach as "to dash in pieces".

See at link where you will see Strong's definition and the Gesenius both showing "to dash in pieces" : https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7523&t=KJV

You said that "Multiple online sources...including Strong" Do you have other online sources that says Strong dictionary has define ratsach as "murder"? I very doubt so unless Strong's has another dictionary version which I have never seen yet. I think that link did a mistake to attribute that definition as Strong's for all the 4 sources listed above by which two of them is hard copies of Strong's official dictionary which says contrary to your link source.


It is the only noun form of ratsach available in the Bible.

It's a different word for you because you have mistakenly thought that "murder" is the definition of ratsach when it is not "murder" but its proper definition is "to dash in pieces".

Of course it become a "murder" application in definition according to our English definition when the ratsach verb is applied towards a man and the killer dash that man to pieces. Just because most of the verses in the Bible has applied the ratsach toward a man and the listing of usage become "murder" doesn't change the fact that ratsach properly means "to dash into pieces".

When you dash(kill) someone to pieces, it shows it's way more than killing a man with a deadly intend like the word "hareg" denotes. While the person might be dead with the first few blows but you continue to beat on him to pieces regardless is he's already dead denotes a deep rooted hatred towards that person. That's what I currently get from the definition of "ratsach" as oppose to "hareg". With a "hareg" killing you stop your blow once the person is dead because your goal is only to kill him and not to dash him into pieces.

Get your definition of the word ratsach in line with the Hebrew; then you can see how it is applied in various context. Of course you need to be able to derive that definition from the context where it is employed.



Well "retsach" means "a crushing" So I can see that there is some application within the context. I don't think a sword is a good instrument to "crush" someone's bones, I would think a hammer or rock would do that job better. But regardless, that's why we need to look at the Hebrew word to really have a better understanding of the text. I agree two occurrences is not many to go by and I haven't looked at the two texts context to see if there are one of these that we can derive a definition of "retsach".